Telemark Talk / Telemark Tips Forum

I have Scarpa T2s and K2 World Piste (122/80/107) for resort tele, and I have Madshus Epochs with NNNBC bindings for moderate BC trails and skiing in the woods. I can do tele turns on the Epochs under favorable conditions, but I mostly use stem turns and Nordic step turns. For steeper BC slopes I am using Madshus Annums with 3 pin bindings and Scarpa T3s. I do not ski any BC slopes steeper than 25 degrees due to the avalanche risk in Colorado, and the Annums are great for this in our dry Colorado winter snow. When we start getting wet spring snow in mid February I can still do nice tele turns with the Annums provided that the snow is not too deep. However, in the woods, where the heavy spring snow is more than ankle deep, I can no longer turn reliably and sometimes I can not turn at all unless I use kick turns.
I am wondering if a 175 cm Rossi BC125 (125/90/115) would be appreciably better than my 175 cm Annums for spring skiing. The 175 cm version is recommended for my 155 lb weight, but I am also considering the shorter 165 cm length. I have been told by Ryan at Onion River that the sidecut for the 165s is the same as the 175s, but the Rossignol website gives (123/95/120) for the 165s. Does anyone have the 165s ? I think the sidecut is printed on the tail for the older models. Does anyone have experience with both Annums and BC125 in heavy spring snow ? Any comments about the newer BC125 with rocker versus the older models ?

Out of my wheelhouse but you may want to look into a rockered ski. Rocker does a couple things, but it makes the effective length of the ski shorter, which makes it turn tighter and quicker, and in 3D snow, it already pre-bent in the direction the ski needs to deform to turn when edged.

Anyway, perhaps you might have better luck with a ski like that for your situation. The Annum is a traditional Alpine single camber with Nordic Rocker, not an early rise rocker like say, a Voile Vector or an Altai Kom.

As far as the Rossis - seems to be some discrepancy between their website and the suppliers. I see both sidecuts you list and Rossis site doesn't mention a rockered tip.

I wouldn't fret much over the sidecut, but the rockered tip might be what you are really after. Good luck.

EarlS wrote:I am wondering if a 175 cm Rossi BC125 (125/90/115)...the sidecut for the 165s is the same as the 175s, but the Rossignol website gives (123/95/120) for the 165s. Does anyone have the 165s ? I think the sidecut is printed on the tail for the older models.

My GF uses the BC125's in 165. They are 125-90-115.

EarlS wrote:Does anyone have experience with both Annums and BC125 in heavy spring snow ?

I've skied both in heavy spring snow. The BC 125's obviously get more float and are a bit more maneuverable in sloppy spring snow. They are also noticeably heavier than the Annums. The Annums tend to get bogged down with lots of deflection in heavy snow. IMO, the Annums and BC125s are very fat XC skis: both performance and construction-wise. Something like the Vector BCs/V6s/Koms (95+ underfoot) are more of an alpine ski in performance and construction.

EarlS wrote:Any comments about the newer BC125 with rocker versus the older models ?

I assume the rocker version would perform better than the non-rockered version in deep, difficult snow.

The Annums and Vectors/V6s/Koms ski very differently from each other. The BC125's fall somewhere in the middle: good float, but IMO, not so good downhill performance when compared to the Vectors/Koms. For heavy spring snow, I would take the Vectors 100% of the time over the Annums. The Annums are just too light and soft for heavy snow. Personally, at your weight, I would go for Koms in 165/175 or the Vector/V6 BCs in 175.

What MikeK says is right: "I wouldn't fret much over the sidecut, but the rockered tip might be what you are really after."

The Vectors are also on my list, but I wanted to pursue the BC125 first because I am familiar with the traditional touring ski design and I thought that the BC125 would be significantly better on trails than the Vectors.
One of my motivations was a review of wide waxless skis in the October 2012 issue of Back Country Magazine which compared several skis on "Cote Hill, a tree-studded slope north of Stowe, Vermont with 20-30° pitches". A photograph shows them skiing in ankle deep Vermont snow. They said the Madshus Annums were "by far the nicest descending ski" and they are "fast and quick to turn; the climbability was not overwhelming but adequate". Regarding the BC125 they said their reviewers gave it "unanimous praise for their turnability" and “In this slightly heavy snow it’s amazing what a difference an extra 12mm [underfoot] makes”. Although this review did not include the Vectors, I was still expecting to hear favorable comments from users of the BC125.
I fully expected to find a satisfied owner who would tell me that they are great for spring snow on rolling trails with the occasional 20 degree downhill run through ankle deep snow. Instead I have found several postings by users who are decidedly lukewarm, with several saying they would prefer to have the Vectors if they did not cost twice as much. The only truly satisfied owner I found is a guy named kickturner who uses them with AT bindings for skiing steep couloirs on volcanoes in Oregon. That is pretty far removed from the kind of skiing that I do.
When I add the apparent indifference by Rossignol, who have very cursory information on their web site, some of which is wrong ( i.e. the sidecut), Im afraid I am ready to scratch the BC125 off my list of candidates.

Owners of the Vectors are unanimously enthusiastic in their praise for the ski and almost all of them say (1) they are great for downhill in deep snow, (2) they are better climbers than Annums and BC125s, and (3) they are not very good for touring. Obviously there will be a sacrifice of glide on trails for a ski with a waist in the 90-95 mm range, but I was hoping the sacrifice would not be too large with the BC125.

I am also worried by the fact that almost everyone says you need T2s with the wide waist of the Vectors. However, in the thread on Vectors, I see that connyro uses Excursions and Switchbacks. Does this mean that kick and glide on trails is not out of the question with the Vectors ? I have used switchbacks on some rented Rossi BC110s (similar to my Annums) and I found that the "climbing mode" was very nice for climbing, but not for kick and glide. However, I set the cartridges so that the heel return force on my T3s was about the same as my 3 pin bindings, consequently the kick and glide in the "downhill mode" was about the same as I get with my Annums and 3 pins. I thought they were pretty nice even though they are almost 2 lbs heavier than my 3pins. I think the T2s are terrific for resort skiing, and I might be willing to use them on trails that are nothing but uphill going in and downhill coming out, but on rolling trails which permit kick and glide I really would not want the T2s.

I would like to ask connyro what kind of skiing he uses them for, what he thinks of their performance on a rolling trail, does the rocker interfere with tracking, and what about T2s versus Excursions ? I hear that you need a different skiing technique with rockered skis; do you find that to be true ?

EarlS wrote:I would like to ask connyro what kind of skiing he uses them for, what he thinks of their performance on a rolling trail, does the rocker interfere with tracking, and what about T2s versus Excursions ? I hear that you need a different skiing technique with rockered skis; do you find that to be true ?

I use VectorBCs/SB/Excursions for everything from exploration trail breaking to turns in steep hardwoods and usually in deep cold powder. The terrain here is extremely rugged and snowy but not a ton of vertical (few hundred feet max). Generally, I tour a few miles out to the slopes and then climb and descend anything from low angle to steeps, without skins for the most part. I've spend a few seasons on the Guides (Annums) and a bit of time on the BC125s. IMO, the Vectors tour as well if not better than the Guides or the BC125s. They track just as straight and are not unreasonably heavy. Unlike some other skiers, I don't mind touring in the SB bindings. You can adjust your stride so that you get adequate K+G. The Vectors out-climb the Guides and BC125s by a long shot IMO. They also break trail better because of the early rise tip.

Some skiers say light boots like the Excursions or T4s are not a good match for the Vectors, but I think that once you adjust your technique, lighter boots are a perfect match for Vectors. T2s would work real well too. Regarding technique for skis like the Vectors with early rise tip/tip rocker, I did not notice any big learning curve. The Vectors just feel right (IMO) from the first time skiing them: They seem to turn themselves sometimes. If you plan to ski rolling trails like you stated, I think the Vectors are a bit overkill. The Annums/3-pins (or something narrower like Epoch/Eon) would be the best for that type of terrain. Vectors are turning machines that can tour decently while Annums are good for touring but can be decent for turning too.

Just my two cents again but it sounds like you might be maxed out on the traditional XCD skis. At least a ski like the Kom or Vector would give you a very different type of ski (perhaps) than the BC125. You might want to use the Annums when the snow is more favorable for them and your touring is more mellow, and use the Vector/Kom for more challenging stuff or when the snow is difficult.

For just rolling trails I will definitely use my Epochs. I bought the Annums two years ago primarily for steeper trails, but I now find that I am also using them for rolling trails which take me to places where I can drop off the trail and do some steeper downhill runs through the woods (aka "touring for turns"). I can do this with my Epochs if conditions are ideal (i.e. dry winter snow) but the Annums are always easier to turn in deep snow. It is really just heavy spring snow which has set me looking for something with more downhill ability.
My plan was, as Mike suggested, to use the lighter, more XCD oriented, Annums until they are overpowered, and then switch to more powerful, but heavier and less tour oriented skis, in the spring. I will look further at the V6 and the Kom. The resort where I ski also rents a lot of modern mid fat skis with tip and tail rocker so I can try out some of the new ski parameters. I generally find that I can work on technique at the resort, where I can get in many downhill runs every day, and then transport it to the BC.

You have to be careful when you read reviews... For instance, not all BC 125 are equal: the first version came in one size (165) with 2 different stiffness. The latest version come with nordic rocker (it seems) and low camber. When someone is saying that he doesn't like em, you have to ask yourself what he's talking about. Same with T2: do you know that the blue and grey version (with intuition liner) is lighter than your T3? I know coz I owned or own both. The old all blue T2 (2 buckles) was soft but heavy with a traditional liner. Th newer version — T2 Eco — is stiffer and a little bit heavier than the blue and grey version (that was designed with backcountry in mind).

Regarding Vectors, I know a bunch of guys in the Saguenay skiing Epoch, Annum and Vectors. The vector guys win the climb and the down on deep snow. The Epoch guys win the kick N' glide and Annum is a better descender. The Vectors are really slow on the flats... You can't have the butter and the farmer wife's a$$... Those results are pretty consistent with what I recently read...

While the name of a ski may not change, there can be huge variations in the ski itself as the model evolves. For me this was brought home by my Karhu XCD GTs. Steve Barnett, who was instrumental in originating the whole XCD concept, loved the 1991-92 originals which had a traditional Nordic shape (62/54/59) but he absolutely hates the version that I have, produced around 2007, with the radically different shape (83/62/70). The version I have it is ok as a trail ski but it is nothing like the kind of ski that Steve Barnett envisioned.

In the case of the BC125, I have seen many user reviews and they are all pretty consistent. Users of the new models say they do not notice any difference due to the small amount of rocker and any slight change of camber and stiffness as compared to the earlier yellow model. All users agree that it behaves like a big version of a traditional touring ski. Compared to my Annums, also a traditional design, it will be slightly slower on a rolling trail, slightly better in soft snow, and slightly better on hard pack, due to being stiffer than the Annums.
Many users compare the BC125 to the Voile Vector, a modern design with a lot of rocker and greatly reduced sidecut. They are again consistent in saying that the Vector is significantly better at climbing and significantly better for turns in soft snow, but slower on a trail. When I consider the BC125 as a replacement for my Annums in heavy spring snow, I have to ask if I want a slight sacrifice of speed on a trail for a slight improvement in turning ability in soft snow, or would I rather make a bigger sacrifice on approach trails for a very big improvement of turning ability in soft snow. I have to think about this. I think I will rent some skis, not necessarily Vectors, which have the more modern sidecut and lots of rocker to see what I think of the modern ski design. The resort where I ski has a several models of this type and I could get in a lot of downhill turns in different snow conditions.

My T2 Ecos with Intuition liner are 0.6 lbs/pair heavier than my 2nd gen T3s. What year was the blue/gray T2 with Intuition liner produced ?

My rough time line for Scarpa T2 says that the original blue two buckle T2 was introduced in 1994/95. The three buckle T2, blue with a silver tongue and a foam liner, came out in 2002 and was produced in 2003/04; in 2005 they introduced the red T2X (womens blue) which had a thermofit liner; in 2009 they introduced the green T2 Eco. The newest Eco is green and black. I have the Kermit green model with Intuition liners; mine weigh 7.6 lbs/pair. Where does the blue/gray T2 with Intuition liner fit it; was it before the 2005 T2X ?

My time line for T3s says that the original rootbeer colored T3s, which lack a power strap, were introduced in 1996/97. Mine weigh 6.35 lbs/pair. I think the 2nd generation came out in 2002; they were black with a power strap and traditional liners; mine weigh 7.0 lbs/pair. In 2005/06 the T3 (mens blue, womens silver) had a thermofit liner and the same lower shell as the T2X. They discontinued the T3 in 2008/09.

If you can fill in some data points on my history of T2s and T3s I would appreciate it very much.

Earl I don't think you would notice much difference in speed between the vectors and 125s. I think the biggest factor determining speed is your boot and binding and it sounds like they would be the same with either ski. I also think the difference in dh performance will be much more than slight.

I got a pair of 2 buckle dark green(maybe dark blue)T-2s in 92 or 93, if that helps.